Better than Hasbro's Chess®

Chess secks

Gender wage gap is a myth.

https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/cpbfha/omg_he_spread_his_legswhat_a_sexist/

Gender wage gap is *mostly* a myth. A study came out of Harvard last year comparing the frequency of promotions granted and promotions asked for in Australia (with a decent sample size of 4,600 something), and while there was disparity in the number of promotions granted favoring men, the number of promotions asked for was about the same. It came out to be a 5%-10% difference in the number of promotions granted, which over time contributes to that wage gap. Whether or not that is based on sexism, biology, societal pressure, maternity leave, etc. is up for debate.

Just to be clear, that was comparing nearly identical jobs in the same sector across multiple companies.

In sports it's a bit complicated. Men get paid more in total in sports, but that's because way more people watch mens sports then womans sports. When you look at the amount made by the league compared to the amount made by the players, you find that women get a bigger chunk of the income in sports.

the adjusted wage gap in the uk is abound 5% when it comes to base pay.... you can say its not a lot but it is what it is....

also when getting to those 5% you need to not take into account any factors that women overwhelmingly does, and are needed to make a society functional. Most obvious example being childcare.... it's an individual choose, and one could just not get kids, but somehow i think that would have a negative impact in the long run, if a significant amount of people took that chose....

@Mista Sista: Please don't be an idiot. Running regressions on data taking into account only one variable (gender) inevitably leads to a strong omitted variable bias.
Women and men are different, I don't understand why that's so difficult to get through people's thick skulls. The 5-10% disparity could be due to any number of other factors, this is an idea you would entertain if you didn't look at the world through a narrow gender lens, where you justify everything that happens to anyone based solely on their gender.
This is a very frustrating topic to discuss, economics doesn't support it and logic doesn't support it. This is an idea that is propped up by career feminists who make money of delusional women, just like that clown Kenneth Copeland makes millions off americans.
Career feminists will push any wacky idea that they think will get traction, it's their career. Any economist with two braincells will tell you the gender wage gap is a joke.

Edited 9/23/2019 21:21:17

economics does suport it, and the adjusted wage gap does take into account many factors, all the factors that one would expect to explain a wage gap in fact. you are simply wrong.

Edited 9/23/2019 21:32:47

EDIT: I see I misunderstood njord. I'll just drop this link here

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/UberPayGap.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiQ58aLsujkAhU0HjQIHb8WCh8QFjABegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2Qff45Vt7l05dBeoNVQOEL

This is one of the newest, and best studies carried out on the gender wage gap to date. It It is really quite interesting, as discrimination is not possible on the Uber app. Also note this study was carried out by a Stanford economist.

Edited 9/24/2019 02:20:35

@Njord: There exists a gender earnings gap, but not a gender wage gap. Two employees, with the same job title in the same company, one male and one female, will earn the exact same salary. I link an articles and a video for you. I would recommend watching Jordan Petersons' video on the subject.
Labour costs eat away at revenue, if companies could hire workers and pay them one third less, they would.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts2k4kjQzhc

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/gender-pay-gap-figures-debunking-the-myths

C00M

i have zero idea why i would look at a psycologists opponion about an economic issue.... i would recomend you look at ecomic analysis of it insteed... eurostat would be a good place to look. i have not seen the video but the article does not support your view, it just talks about there being reasons for the main bulk of the gap, which no one really is disagreeing about.

concerning your neoclassical wage model, its true given a lot of assumptions, perfect markets, 100 % profit maximization, and all the other normal things.... but given that women wages was seen as pocket money until after the war, and they got significant other wages because of this in the past, its obvious that his model does not hold, as this wage structure was formed in a time, were if anything the market was less regulated then it is now.

if insteed of the gaurdian and youtube, you will look at some analysis of the issue, here are some things

https://www.glassdoor.com/research/app/uploads/sites/2/2016/03/Glassdoor-Gender-Pay-Gap-Study.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/aid_development_cooperation_fundamental_rights/report-gender-pay-gap-eu-countries_october2018_en_0.pdf

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/b919f002-6ebb-4cbd-90c8-c0d128f55459/DSSB-2017-Dec-%203%20Adjusted%20gender%20pay%20gap.pdf

Edited 9/24/2019 19:22:20

@Njord @Elohim you guys are basically making the same claim. Just in a slightly different fashion. Njord presented 3 studies, they paint the same picture as Jordan Peterson does. The vast majority of the $0.78-$1 can be explained through non-discriminatory fashions, and the differences in the types of life choices men and woman make.Only something around 5% can't be explained. But that still doesn't imply discrimination. It just means they don't have data to explain it. So I am confused by your guy's point of contention?

"The single biggest cause of the gender pay gap is occupation and industry sorting of
men and women into jobs that pay differently throughout the economy. In the U.S.,
occupation and industry sorting explains 54 percent of the overall pay gap—by far the
largest factor. For example, Census figures show women make up only 26 percent
of highly paid chief executives but 71 percent of low-paid cashiers. Past research
suggests this is due partly to social pressures that divert men and women into
different college majors and career tracks, or to other gender norms such as women
bearing disproportionate responsibility for child and elderly care, which pressures
women into more flexible jobs with lower pay."

@Njord: This is from your own cited source. As I said, there is a gender earnings gap, not gender wage gap. There are discrepancies in salaries between men and women, because men and women choose different career paths. If you had watched Jordan Peterson's take on this issue, he explains how these different choices are not due to societal pressures, but occur naturally, as seen in Sweden, the most egalitarian country on the planet.
Gender norms occur naturally. Feminists cannot pick and choose what part of being a man in todays society they want, and what part they don't.
Where are all the feminists demanding 50% female workforce as plumbers, 50% female workforce as builders. Thank god this discussion is dying.
Anecdotal evidence, which is true generally as well. My ex-girlfriends friend was, and still is, a staunch feminist, and she complained that there were not enough women in STEM fields. I went to one of their lectures (they study psychology), and I shit you not, there was one guy there in a lecture hall of over 100 students. Women and men are different, my own maths and econometrics seminars had 90% guys, and it was higher even in my friends courses who studied engineering. Please, the data does not support discriminatory salary discrepancies.

Edit: I would like to add one more time, economics, especially in a capitalist society, does not support a gender wage gap.

Edited 9/25/2019 21:20:33

it's cool that your having a discussion with yourself but what you have cited no one is disagreeing about, but the things i have cited does support an unexplained part of the gap.in fact there should be a wage gap when it comes to men when accounting for those factors since women have a lower workforce participation.

if one knows anything about the discussion about nature and nuture, then one knows that it's not a settled debate. we dont know, as nero science as an example is still is in its infancy. So if one comes with very clear cut answer on this, well then he is a charlatan.

also i dont understand why a psychologist talks about the relation between economics and biology? he seems completly unqualified for doing that

so i have also taken some econometrics classes and there was around 35-40% women, so does this mean that women in scandinavia are genetically difrent then in the uk? bonus info 30% of psycology students here are men



riddle me this, if one is in large part a biological determinist, then how does chooses then determine the(explained part of the) gap.


also just a general note: people should stop using youtube as a source of knowledge

Edited 9/26/2019 09:43:04

You guys are agreeing on the core issue....

@Njord:
-"...but the things i have cited does support an unexplained part of the gap."
There will always be unexplained variability when 'crunching numbers', the goodness of fit value is never 1 (R-squared value) when running regressions on data with real world variables (as far as I know), there is always 'something we don't know that we don't know', but this is not discriminatory, i.e sexism.

-"if one knows anything about the discussion about nature and nuture, then one knows that it's not a settled debate. we dont know, as nero science as an example is still is in its infancy. So if one comes with very clear cut answer on this, well then he is a charlatan."
You are right, the debate is not settled. That doesn't mean we don't know anything. Can you assert here and now then that men and women are identical, or at the very least functionally identical?

-"also i dont understand why a psychologist talks about the relation between economics and biology? he seems completly unqualified for doing that"
If you have read any case studies on economic issues, you would find that in many cases they are co-authored by psychologists. I personally think psychology is a pseudo-science, or if anything, anybody can be a psychologist, but that's beside the point.
Psychologists help explain variability in data (which economists can also do, but we don't use their fancy words), i.e why some professions have more men than women, they help explain consumer behaviour. In economics, we assume that every consumer is a 'rational consumer', which we know is not true, but that's what all economic models assume. There is an entire field called behavioural economics, which is a mix of economics and psychology. I hope now you understand why I recommended Jordan Peterson, he helps explain the data.

-"so i have also taken some econometrics classes and there was around 35-40% women, so does this mean that women in scandinavia are genetically difrent then in the uk? bonus info 30% of psychology students here are men"
Forgive me for what I'm about to say. But do you know the consequences of your backwards feminist agenda? You are failing your women. Scandinavia has the highest rates of rape in Europe, this is what happens when you fight masculinity, when your men are emasculated and feminised, you give birth to an entire generation of men, who are pussies. If you want to fight inequality between men and women, fight the rampant rape of women that happens in Scandinavia. Your Justice System fails your women.


Look inwards, your 'egalitarian' values fail those you claim they are supposed to protect.

Edited 9/26/2019 14:25:30

i dont have any feminist agenda. There is a statistical significance for there being a wage gap, also when adjusted for all the factors that one would find legitimate for the gap. Then its fine that you hold that its not discriminatory, even if you have no way of knowing and that your metodologival demands makes it impossibel to make any kind of assesment of it, but still

"Two employees, with the same job title in the same company, one male and one female, will earn the exact same salary."

is not true. its just not.

through your point about rape, you now hold to positions about gender roles. they are biologically determined and also that they are in large parts socially decided. I would recommend you try to uphold the law of noncontradiction.

Edited 9/26/2019 20:12:38

@Njord: You are inferring information that I am not implying. Gender roles are in large part biologically determined, and there is a social aspect I'm sure, but that is because we are social animals. I would make the case that biological differences heavily influenced societal gender roles. Please quote the part of my answer that seems contradictory.


"is not true. its just not."
I have been an accounting intern at 3 separate companies, and I have never seen any individual, be it man or woman, receive a higher paycheck than anyone else when they have the same position. The only difference being business developers at the larger firm I worked at, where I noticed men received slightly higher bonuses overall, it was also 95% male business developer, and bonuses are reflective of performance.
Please cite sources that support ----> "is not true. its just not."